Re: scheme - my opinion
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
>>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
Hrvoje> I think both [CL and Scheme] specify characters as
Hrvoje> strings, as you surely guessed.
Huh?
Damn. I meant "*and* strings." Sorry for the confusion.
>> >> 2. What constructs in one dialect would be
difficult or
>> >> impossible to implement efficiently in the other?
Hrvoje> Why is this an issue? I don't *want* to implement Scheme
Hrvoje> in CL, nor do I want to implement CL in Scheme.
>> Some people _are_ thinking in those terms. So it's an issue.
>> Closed, from your standpoint. Still open, from mine.
Hrvoje> Can you name some of these people? What exactly do they
Hrvoje> want to achieve by implementing CL in Scheme, or vice
Hrvoje> versa?
(1) Michael Sperber.
I've never read his messages that way, except in theoretical terms
("CL *can* be implemented in Scheme.") Do you know something that I
don't?
(2) Keeping CL proponents happy if the engine turns out to be
Scheme, among other things.
I don't think Scheme will ever satisfy CL proponents.
Hrvoje> And what does that have to do with what we are
Hrvoje> discussing here (extension language for XEmacs)?
Supporting multiple dialects of extension language. Which we
already know you don't like. That doesn't mean nobody likes it.
More important, it doesn't mean that that won't be reached as a
compromise solution.
More important, it doesn't mean that the development won't split.
Multiple extension languages sounds like big trouble.
>> I'm trying to get an understanding of the advantages
and
>> disadvantages of the dialects. When you take advantage of my
>> ignorance to be legalistic like that, it doesn't build my
>> confidence in your position.
Hrvoje> I have no idea what you mean here. I haven't "taken
Hrvoje> advantage" of you. You noticed that Bruno should maintain
Hrvoje> font-lock.c, and I said he shouldn't. I see no reason in
Hrvoje> this world why clisp maintainer should maintain XEmacs
Hrvoje> code.
I don't either, and the fact that you answer by implying I think he
should is what I mean by legalistic.
I definitely thought it was what you meant.
You're avoiding answering the question of the dis/advantages of
CLisp by pointing out my ignorance of what is part of the Lisp
engine proper and what is not.
And you are insulting me by putting intentions in my mouth that I
never had. I had explained the technical merits of clisp before on
this list (I have forwarded some of Bruno's mails), and so did others
(Reginald Perry, for one.)
>> Can we assert with some confidence that we will be able
to
>> depend on a separately-maintained Common Lisp engine,
>> presumably CLisp, or not?
Hrvoje> That would be the whole point of the move.
I know that, and you know that I know, I hope. Now explain why you
have _confidence_ that something as large and standard-ridden as CLisp
is going to be a satisfactory substrate for XEmacs.
If enough work is done on ensuring it is, I don't see why it wouldn't
be a good choice. Define "confidence."
Having done that, explain why you have confidence it is going to
stay _both_ satisfactory and separately-maintained.
Because otherwise the whole thing would make no sense. If this goal
cannot be met with clisp, then clisp is not the right choice.
Michael is on speaking terms with Scheme, and its implementations.
There is no way I can compete with Michael.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Then... his face does a complete change of expression. It goes from
a "Vengeance is mine" expression, to a "What the fuck" blank look.